Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nopaque TotalPath

by uk.co.nopaque
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Run Mission Test

runMissionTest
Destructive

Launch a mission test run from an existing saved mission-test-config. A mission test calls a number, executes a scripted persona+goal+acceptance flow, and the LLM self-reports pass/fail against the acceptance criterion at end-of-call. Returns the run resource immediately; poll getMissionTestRun for verdict.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "runMissionTest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMission test config identifier.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description earns credit by explaining why — the tool places a real outbound call to a number with an LLM-driven conversation, and it returns immediately rather than blocking for a verdict. It does not mention retry/cost implications of a non-idempotent live call, but the core side-effect picture is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mechanism and the async handoff — no filler. The middle sentence describing the persona/goal/acceptance flow is useful orientation but runs long for what an invoking agent strictly needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description still covers the async contract and the polling path. Given a live-call, non-idempotent operation, a note on failure/retry or call cost would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single `id` parameter documented as a UUID mission-test-config identifier. The description reinforces that the referenced config must already exist and be saved, which adds a little meaning, but offers no further format or validation detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Launch a mission test run") and then explains what a mission test actually is: dialing a number, running a scripted persona+goal+acceptance flow, and having the LLM self-report pass/fail. This is far beyond restating the name and lets an agent distinguish it from getMissionTestRun, draftMissionTestConfig, and the digital/compliance test variants.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the prerequisite clearly ("from an existing saved mission-test-config") and routes the agent onward to getMissionTestRun for the verdict. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., to author a config use draftMissionTestConfig, or that a digital test is a different tool), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Nopaque TotalPath toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources